Linked by Pobrecito Hablador on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 21:19 UTC
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris One of the advantages of ZFS is that it doesn't need a fsck. Replication, self-healing and scrubbing are a much better alternative. After a few years of ZFS life, can we say it was the correct decision? The reports in the mailing list are a good indicator of what happens in the real world, and it appears that once again, reality beats theory. The author of the article analyzes the implications of not having a fsck tool and tries to explain why he thinks Sun will add one at some point.
Permalink for comment 392875
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: You are wrong.
by segedunum on Wed 4th Nov 2009 22:04 UTC in reply to "You are wrong."
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Most of your listed problems are related to the problem of buggy hardware...

As the article has specified quite clearly, other filesystems like NTFS, ext, XFS etc. have been dealing with the same 'buggy' hardware for years. Granted, they usually run on systems with far, far better developed and tested storage drivers on such varied hardware devices than Solaris will ever have and that's where quite a few of the unseen problems are probably happening. ZFS doesn't seem to handle these issues well because it assumes a system working as it expects.

...resulting in failed transactions.

I fail to see how transactions can fail and bork the system. They either succeed or they don't. If this isn't the case then you need to be looking at where the problem is in your own stack.

It's highly ironic that ZFS was specifically designed and hyped by Sun to bring 'storage to the masses' with commodity hardware......and when there turns out to be a problem that same 'buggy' hardware that Sun has said you can use with confidence with ZFS is blamed for the problems.

In the quote there Jeff told us exctly why Apple can't use ZFS, or why it can't be used in desktop scenarios until it is optimised for the purpose. Single pools will even be quite common in large storage scenarios a ZFS will sit on large LUNS with their own redundancy along with filesystems used by other operating systems.

We don't need no stinking fsck.

Well yes you do, because fsck merely stands for 'filesystem check'. All it does is make sure that the filesystem is in a state that can be used before you mount it. On different filesystems those will consist of different checks, so yes, this is a fsck for ZFS. It should be checking consistency on every mount. The only difference with ZFS is that the fsck should take far less time than on other filesystems.

I'm not entirely sure what you or a few other people around here think 'fsck' stands for.

Reply Parent Score: 2